Which inactive (inactive) excipients and fillers appear on Burn Peak product labels?

1. What the company publishes: active ingredients and claims

Burn Peak’s official site and press materials repeatedly name active, plant‑derived components and exogenous ketone salts — for example, references to BHB ketone salts and ingredients like Haematococcus (astaxanthin source) appear in product copy and company releases ^{[1] [2]}. Marketing emphasizes non‑GMO, vegan, gluten‑free and “100% natural” positioning and calls out manufacturing in FDA‑registered, GMP‑certified U.S. facilities, which sellers use to imply quality control ^{[3] [1]}.

2. What reviewers and third parties report — active list, not excipients

Multiple third‑party reviews and aggregators summarize the formula around BHB (often as magnesium, calcium or sodium BHB), green tea extract, caffeine and other plant extracts, but these pieces stop at “active ingredient” descriptions and do not publish label details for inactive ingredients such as fillers, binders, capsule material or flow agents ^{[4] [5] [6]}. Several outlets explicitly note the absence of FDA drug approval while treating the product as a standard dietary supplement ^[6].

3. The gap: no public supplement facts for inactive ingredients in the provided sources

None of the supplied links show a full Supplement Facts panel or list of inactive excipients (capsule shells, microcrystalline cellulose, magnesium stearate, silicon dioxide, etc.). The company’s claims of “100% natural” and “no artificial fillers” are cited on the official site and promotional news releases, but those claims are marketing statements rather than a printed ingredient panel in the sources provided ^{[1] [3]}. Therefore, specific inactive excipients are not documented in current reporting (available sources do not mention specific inactive excipients).

4. Why excipient transparency matters — context from regulation and consumer practice

Consumers and clinicians rely on the Supplement Facts panel to identify allergens (soy/dairy), capsule materials (gelatin vs. plant‑based), and processing agents; marketing claims like “vegan” and “soy‑free” signal some of this intent but do not substitute for a precise list of excipients ^[1]. Multiple review sites advise buying direct from the official seller to ensure authenticity and full labeling, implicitly acknowledging that label differences sometimes occur across batches and third‑party sellers ^{[7] [8]}.

5. Conflicting signals and potential agendas in the sources

Promotional outlets and the official site emphasize safety, GMP manufacture, and “no artificial fillers” as selling points; press releases and affiliate reviews reiterate those claims and sometimes add dosage/benefit framing favorable to the product ^{[3] [9]}. Independent review sites raise typical caveats — lack of FDA approval and limited publicly available clinical data — but in the supplied material many reviewers still present positive interpretations of the active ingredient list while not independently verifying excipient content ^{[6] [8]}. That pattern suggests a marketing agenda toward reassurance; scrutiny of inert ingredients is not visible in the provided reporting.

6. What a buyer should do next to confirm excipients

To identify inactive excipients with certainty, request or view the product’s actual Supplement Facts panel on the official product packaging or contact the manufacturer directly for a certificate of analysis or ingredient listing; several sources explicitly urge purchasing from official channels to ensure authentic labeling and fresh product info ^{[7] [1]}. Available sources do not publish that panel, so direct verification is the only option given current reporting.

Limitations: this analysis uses only the supplied documents. If you want, I can scan the official product page or an image of the product label you provide and extract the precise inactive ingredients from the Supplement Facts panel.